|
Post by requiemoftwilight on Nov 25, 2006 18:18:38 GMT -5
What about the system that allowed the child to slip through the gap??? Are they accountable too??? Should the officals be on DR as accessories? Well should antis be accountable everytime a murder sentenced to LWOP kills a guard or fellow inmate or is released and kills more innocents because their LWOP sentence is reduced on apppeal? Tharp removed Tausha from her home everytime they were about to come in and check. I believe that the system needs serious reform but it will never be perfect, children are always going to slip through the cracks. My cousin's wife does social work in Langely BC, agencies are very underfunded; it is not an easy job.
|
|
|
Post by requiemoftwilight on Nov 25, 2006 18:52:07 GMT -5
....and please spare me of this BS post that obviously shows you have less than none real understanding of what might be going on in the body before it is found in a state such as this child's. I have taken some interest to this case and have not yet found good evidence she WAS starvED to death. That she starved is obvious but that does NOT mean for certain she WAS BEING STARVED by her mother. It's sickening to read posts like this one, and it makes me seriously angry. This is a very serious accusation and it has been made far to quickly by everyone posting in opposition of Michelle Tharp. I never forced you to read my post. It made you angry? It offended you? Well that's too damn bad! Life is offensive and angering, deal with it. I know what organic failure to thrive is, I've taken biochemistry courses in university. I've taken in interest in this case to and find that the evidence suggests otherwise. If Tausha was not being starved, why did witnesses claim she bound to a corner by furniture while the other children ate? Why did another witness claim she was neglected in other ways (soaking diaper ignored). Why didn't Tharp ever take Tausha to the doctor (and don't tell me she couldn't afford it, the family was recieving welfare because of the girl's sickness and had a car which could have sold....finally although USA unlike the rest of the first world, does not have nationalized healthcare, people are treated if it's an emergency and a child as ill as Tausha days before her death would not have been turned away).
|
|
|
Post by requiemoftwilight on Nov 25, 2006 19:25:42 GMT -5
There's some arrant nonsense on this thread from people who do not know Michelle at all and systematically believe everything in the media and the prosecution playbook. The paucity of the evidence against Michelle was such that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needed to use THREE jailhouse snitch witnesses to secure a conviction. Lets be clear about this..one jailhouse snitch = shaky case.......two jailhouse snitches = HELP!!! .... 3 jailhouse snitches = case with more holes than a Swiss cheese !!! I'm just brainwashed by the media? First of all, when this girl died, I was only 12 years old and living in Canada, far from where this happened. Follow the prosecution? There are plenty of claims of innocence on this site and others which I fully support: Debra Jean Milke, Anthony Graves, Jimmy Dennis, but most are absolutely ridiculous like this one, John William King, John Spirko, Robert Glen Jones.... If using a jailhouse snitch automatically invalidates the case, then most people with a co-defendents should be re-tried. Should Paul Bernardo be re-tried because they used a jailhouse snitch? Should Gerald Gallego be re-tried because they used a jailhouse snitch? Should Marlin Gray be re-tried because they used a jailhouse snitch? I think that cases should be thrown out when the jailhouse snitch is the only or almost only evidence. However there were plenty of witnesses in this case who were not jailhouse snitches, the aunt, nieghbours, a family friend, the doctor who did the autotopsy.
|
|
|
Post by requiemoftwilight on Nov 25, 2006 19:29:17 GMT -5
This Michelle must have a really nice personality or something, since she has so many supporters! Psychopaths use their charming personality to mask their true motives
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Feb 26, 2007 6:41:57 GMT -5
This Michelle must have a really nice personality or something, since she has so many supporters! Psychopaths use their charming personality to mask their true motives Michelle Tharp is not a psychopath or anything like. When you stop reading the psychobabble to be found on Google and actually read the trial transcript and her appeal petition an entirely different picture emerges. I predict a re-trial in this case with supreme confidence. Among the startling facts not so readily available to google readers are the examples of conflict of interest that make Michelle's trial lawyer such a complete shyster it was a wonder he was allowed in the courthouse. So Requienoftwilight.........since you appear to know so much about the case, and you wont get rid of me as readily as Xyntax disappeared.....whats your prediction for the case......bearing in mind the last woman executed in PA was in 1946 ??
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Feb 26, 2007 6:54:37 GMT -5
There's some arrant nonsense on this thread from people who do not know Michelle at all and systematically believe everything in the media and the prosecution playbook. The paucity of the evidence against Michelle was such that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needed to use THREE jailhouse snitch witnesses to secure a conviction. Lets be clear about this..one jailhouse snitch = shaky case.......two jailhouse snitches = HELP!!! .... 3 jailhouse snitches = case with more holes than a Swiss cheese !!! I'm just brainwashed by the media? First of all, when this girl died, I was only 12 years old and living in Canada, far from where this happened. Follow the prosecution? There are plenty of claims of innocence on this site and others which I fully support: Debra Jean Milke, Anthony Graves, Jimmy Dennis, but most are absolutely ridiculous like this one, John William King, John Spirko, Robert Glen Jones.... If using a jailhouse snitch automatically invalidates the case, then most people with a co-defendents should be re-tried. Should Paul Bernardo be re-tried because they used a jailhouse snitch? Should Gerald Gallego be re-tried because they used a jailhouse snitch? Should Marlin Gray be re-tried because they used a jailhouse snitch? I think that cases should be thrown out when the jailhouse snitch is the only or almost only evidence. However there were plenty of witnesses in this case who were not jailhouse snitches, the aunt, nieghbours, a family friend, the doctor who did the autotopsy. Jailhouse snitch testimony is the most unreliable, self-serving form of evidence available and its use doesnt automatically invalidate convictions, but should be viewed with extreme caution. I believe in any trial where the prosecution intends to rely on such evidence, any deal entered into with the witness or witnesses with regard to their own prosecution should be made known to the jury, without fail. If this is not adhered to, such "evidence" should be disregarded. If you havent already done so, read " The Innocent Man " by John Grisham and take that a step further by imagining how far the prosecutions of Williamson and Fritz, Ward and Fontenot and Greg Wilhoit would have got without the most cynical abuse of the system with jailhouse snitch witnesses. Dont believe for a second such cynicism is peculiar to Oklahoma. It was highlighted in Illinois by their Moratorium Commission and general stats show unreliable evidence of that nature tarnished 46% of the cases where death row inmates have been freed.
|
|